Obama supports rape executions

Source: cnn.com

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he disagrees with a Supreme Court decision striking down the death penalty for child rapists, telling reporters Wednesday that states should be able to execute people for “heinous” crimes.

“I think that the rape of small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime,” the Illinois senator said. “And if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that does not violate our Constitution.”

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that capital punishment can be applied only to murderers, striking down a death sentence for a Louisiana man convicted of sexually assaulting his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

Read more: http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/25/obama-supports-... /

---

Mr. Obama has made it clear where he stands.
Good or Bad?

I think he's off on this one.

Let's say we start with child rapists. Wouldn't it eventually get down to people who tortured, but did not kill, other people? It's slippery slope.

I guess the pedophiles will go out and celebrate the decision with a bag of candy or gum.

very poor.

.

And extremely disapointing. My assumptions about a sense of social and legal justice are clearly not widely shared - on this thread at least.

And not ashamed on bit of it,concerning crimes like child rape.
I hate child rapists they are murderers.. they just do it very slowly via the victims own mind and brains.They ruin lives and take lives by proxy over time..

Most perpetrators don't molest only one child if they are not reported and stopped.
Nearly 70% of child sex offenders have between 1 and 9 victims; at least 20% have 10 to 40 victims. (23)
An average serial child molester may have as many as 400 victims in his lifetime.

…The catalyst for her severe mental health problems was, she says, the rape she suffered when she was 14.

…When Fran reported the rape, he was interviewed by police. Three more women claiming they, too, had been attacked came forward and agreed to testify against him. However, in 2001 the man killed himself before the Crown Prosecution Service could decide whether to proceed.

‘After the rape, I became clinically depressed,’ says Fran. ‘I lost a huge amount of weight and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital after trying to kill myself with an overdose of tablets. It wasn’t a cry for help; I wanted to die because of what he had done to me.’

http://writhesafely.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/how-psychi... /

I support Brigitte Harris, the 26-year-old New York woman charged with strangling and castrating her pig of a father for what he did to her because he could.

http://writhesafely.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/these-are-...

Perhaps we could strew their entrails about the courthouse. You know, as kind of a warning. In fact, we could take their skin (once we are done removing the internal organs, of course) and make people convicted of other crimes of moral outrage wear the skin as punishment!

I swear, these threads would make Marquis de Sade blush.

Your method eventually ends their suffering.

form of criminal "justice".

I am sorry to hear such illiberal views and such opinions that are not based on any form of logic or reason but are purely driven by a thirst for righteousness and revenge.

a small 6 x 6 foot cell is cruel and unusual punishment. The needle is much kinder. I am constantly amazed at those who would see someone punished for years like this.

and death row prisoners have sometimes been exonerated through DNA evidence.

so you are okay with potentially innocent people being executed, then?

I hate child rapists they are murderers..

I might get hate for this next comment, but here goes.

Rape is not murder. Only murder is murder.

The victim in a murder case is dead in the ground.
The victim in a rape case receives counseling. They are given a second chance. Their lives continue.

Child rape is terrible. Many times it is never forgotten. I am not debating that. My point is that over the past 20 years the media has portrayed rape as worse than murder. i have heard people say that, with full belief in their heart that it is true.

How can something that does not kill you be worse than something that does. Its like saying breaking your left foot is the same as having it amputated.


Feel free to flame. Feel free to disagree. Just understand where i am coming from.

Because a male at a hospital here had "sex" with her. However, I too oppose the death penalty for this man. The reason? I have 2 family members who work for the prison and I GUARANTEE to you what this man will endure will have him begging for the death penalty.

It happened to me. Would I see him dead? YOU BETTER BETCHA. That was worse than death.

That's the difference between rape and murder.

As much harm, both physical and mental, rape does to someone you have to remember this. You are still alive.

The hate you may feel towards the rapist is only there because you are alive.

That is how rape does not equal murder.

Again; Only Murder is Murder

And I have no idea where Obama is coming from. As someone who is working hard to get into the mindset of throwing my support to him, I'm aghast at this. Who is he pandering to? It certainly isn't people like me, a confirmed anti-death penalty liberal. We should be working hard to eradicate the death penalty in this country not expanding it.

we're a bloodthirsty, vengeful Nation. We don't always think-we prefer to react instead. If the death penalty had been imposed for child rapists then many children would feel responsible for the deaths of their fathers, uncles, and other sick family members who they love but who have victimized them (my own mother is one such victim). So there would be far fewer children reporting the crime, which would mean far fewer children getting the help that they need. The Supreme courts ruling was a sensible one.

I want to see all child rapists put to death, but TORTURE?

No,Torture is WRONG ALWAYS. Because of the wounds it leaves in the soul.

Just kill the child rapists.Death is NOT the same thing as Torture, people.Death will stop them forever.

_ALL_Torture is wrong.DEATH is NOT the Same thing as TORTURE!!!
Child rapists are torturers.And they murder the innocent.
Killing Child rapists is NOT torture and it is NOT Killing an innocent.

The kind of murder child rapists do is from the inside out,the memories are time bombs exploding in the child's mind or teen's mind or adult's mind after the crime has passed and been denied..and justice also denied...Child rape is delayed murder via torture,and continued torture via PSTD until the victim suicides That is murder.The child was killed on the inside by the child rapist first,than tortured more because her mind and memories torture for years and so unable to cope the victim too often suicides fast like blowing their brains out or slow via addiction...And a child rapist caused it all,by his choice to destroy a child because he could...

When will you all GET IT,that child rapists are not innocents, they are not safe to co-exist around anybody and they cannot be cured.

Do NOT TORTURE THEM ,just simply Kill them.

That, and the thing that it says about cruel and unusual punishment. Pesky piece of paper, isn't it?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

... then having the death penalty for child rape simply encourages the rapist to leave no witnesses alive.

...we can't let the death penalty start creeping out and expanding for other crimes. Once that starts, it never stops.

I support the death penalty for spammers.

Consider an average human lifespan to be 75 years, or 28,135 days or 657,450 hours.

Anyone who sends a spam that wastes a total of 657,450 man-hours to combat has just committed "virtual murder."

Thank god nobody in the government (apparently) agrees with me.

i think they stopped, though

wants that brough back, though

....the most likely place to be pick pocketed was at executions. So much for deterrance of crime....

The "Christian" right would like nothing better than to impose the death penalty for adulterers (except themselves, of course), fornicators, homosexuality, blasphemy, etc. etc. Child rape is heinous, no doubt about it, but putting people to death for it will only result in more children never reporting the crime, and more dead children. Neither situation is acceptable.

I'm an opponent of the death penalty and am glad that the court ruled the way they did. However, I'm not sure I follow the argument I've seen here on DU that applying the DP to child rape cases will encourage the rapist to murder their victims.

I guess I just don't see it as that likely that a child rapist will think that if they don't face the DP they should let the victim live, thereby making it more likely that they'll be caught and convicted (since there will be a living eyewitness) and sent to prison for life. A rapist that doesn't think he's going to get caught probably isn't any more likely to kill his victim regardless of the penalty. And a rapist that is worried about getting caught is likely to kill his victim to minimize that from happening, again without regard to what would happen to him if he's caught.

if there is DP for child rape, then there is absolutely no incentive for letting the victim live.

and I'm no fan of life in prison, which is what I face if I let the victim live, so I'll take my chances by killing the victim since I don't want to be caught and go to prison for life.

Are there statistics that show whether fewer child rape victims are killed in states that don't have the death penalty for child rape than in the states that (prior to today) did? That would be a signficant statistic I would think.

...so I'll take my chances by killing the victim since I don't want to be caught and go to prison for life.

Undoubtedly some do think that, but the point is that you would have a lot more people thinking that killing their victim would be the best thing to do should the DP be imposed compared with a sentence of life in prison (though such sentences are rarely handed down - you're usually looking at maybe 10 years).

No one has been executed for the rape of a minor, AFAIK. Kennedy was the test case. One of the arguments that the state of LA put forward was that imposing DP for child rape was part of a growing trend as part of evolving moral standards (which the majority opinion rebuffed).

You can look at other crime stats, though, and see the the DP doesn't exactly have a deterrent value (take homicide rates in Texas, for example).

I will get the death penalty. Your logic is faulty.

The more likely it is that they will be caught, the less likely they will act. If a criminal thinks that eliminating the only witness to the event will significantly reduce their chance of getting caught and punished, why wouldn't they take that step?

I guess the issue is whether killing the victim significantly reduces the chances of getting caught.

be distracted by the other.

What about all those people that Oprah did a show on that were proved to have been falsely convicted molesting and raping children? But once you execute them it makes it pretty pointless to prove their innocense. The state gets to save face by using murder to conceal their crime of convicting the innocent.

It reduces the number of crimes which people have time to plan it out.

However - the alternative is way worse. But this was an unnecessary strike.

as a black man in america, he should understand why the death penalty should be abolished emotionally, i understand where he's coming from tho...hmmmm

I remember how hog wild everyone was for Peloisi when she was elected Speaker. As soon nas she said she absolutely had to have the biggest fanciest office in Washington I knew we were screwed. I have very deep reservations about Obama. He wants to please the Republicans too damn bad..

that he was going to take a stand, but I just think that it is the wrong stand to take. I guess it was a done deal, though, given that DP is popular and that child molesters aren't exactly sympathetic characters - but I also think that the reasoning of the SCOTUS on this issue was sound. It's unfortunate that ideology would trump jurisprudence, but I guess that's politics for you.

(plenty considering the court decision). He chose not to take it.

Your average Joe isn't going to take the time to figure all of that out. All your average Joe is going to think is that Obama supports baby rapers. Hell, he's probably raped babies himself!

by the spectre of such thinking? So much for courage if that is so.

and if he actually believes it then I am sorry to see him hold such illiberal views.

is merely that it was a politically calculated move to win over people who object to the SCOTUS decision on purely emotional grounds while not having to take a firm stand on something that he would actually have to do.

And an opportunity lost.

.

I am against death penalty in all cases. I believe in life in prison without possibility of parole.

As if rape isn't a cruel method of torture.

Or is this a knee-jerk reaction for trying to score political points?

I doubt that will even come up when he's president and if it does he wont pay much attention to it. It is a heinous crime, but there is no excuse for execution IMO anyway...

You think that's why he's saying it?

DP is popular overall, and child rapists aren't sympathetic characters. Coming down hard on people who do things like that is usually a safe political move. It's like saying that you support education or health care - it's a win-win.

This is very disappointing.

it was your wife?" bruhaha


Certiori was granted by the Supremes at this time probably based upon a request from the repubs, this and the 2nd amendment, to influence the election.

Obama has fought in Ill to have prisoners released who were wrongfully accused. There is a lot of nuance here

...unfortunately, this is how politics is played.

I'm not willing to lose this election defending child rapists. They're not worth 4 years of John McCain.

the SCOTUS wasn't defending child rapists, or the act of child rape. They were merely saying that the application of DP for child rape falls outside of the bounds of the constitution.

that the state can constitutionally impose the death penalty for other heinous (or maybe not so heinous) crimes other than murder.

Perhaps, as his buddy from Oklahoma wants- for physicians who perform abortions.

Once you get into this territory, reason inevitably succumbs to the slippery slope.

The state's argument in the decision was that the sentence imposed on Kennedy was part of a growing trend that involved evolving moral standards. Who gets to set those moral standards, and consequently the crimes for which one can be murdered?

in 1972 and brought the US in line with all the other western nations.

A big mistake, in retrospect.

But I can't fault Obama for disagreeing. IMHO from a political standpoint he had little choice.

I think that it was politically prudent. I think that it is unfortunate, but then again I think politics is a dirty business.

Well...er....you are wrongfully convicted of rape and all....but they really didn't have a choice politically but to kill you and watch you die.

What ever happened to an eye for an eye?

Seems like this is beyond that standard....

There's too much at stake. This supreme court is one justie away from being totally lost for a generation.

JMO

is clear to me. Losing the supreme court is losing the whole game. They hold the future in their hands: abortion, privacy rights, civil rights, gay rights-they determine everything. I want a Democrat elected and there's only one available-I'm not interested in tearing him down or questioning his integrity right now.

For political gain?

Well, hmmmm.....Wasn't it one of Obama's opponents who/....for political gain....supported the IWR?

If it is political gain to the contrary, would Obama fight for the principles of "abortion, privacy rights, civil rights, gay rights"?

I doubt it. He goes against a good Supreme Court decision that opposed extending the gross evil of capital punishment even further into our society for political gain. Who on Earth is so friggin naive to doubt that, if the political winds blew the wrong way, he would throw the rights of aborton, privacy, and gay rights under the same bus as oppositiion to FISA and capital punishment?

I am an Obama supporter. But he is sounding less and less like meaningful change.

He wants to get elected. Something else he shares in common with McCain.....

I am sorry, but capital punishment is a moral issue. You shouldn't support death for political points. That is immoral, barbaric and sick. How can anyone who worships in a Christian church support the practice that killed their savior? Obama struck out on the capital punishment issue in my view. Pandered to what the masses would want. The crowd says "free Barrabas". Obama says that is cool....

This scares me.

I personally am tired of having the better candidate and still losing. McGovern in 1972, Carter in 1980, Mondale 1984, Dukakis 1988, Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004-thats enough morality for me.

Again, I'm one lousy voter.I'm not preaching my view, I'm not trying to convince anyone-its just how I feel. Morals are too expensive to me-I'm 54 and I want as much as I can get of my country back in this lifetime.

They are at least honest

is too controversial-it had to be addressed and defused at once. It would have been VERY easy to define Obama as an extreme liberal more worried about the rights of evil rapists than innocent children. Do you think Karl Rove et al would have let this perfect chance to smear our nominee pass without acting on it? This is a crucial time-many Americans haven't even tuned in yet. Obama doesn't need this particular fight-IMHO.

I honestly don't see where he had much choice....

Why take a stand...against the supreme court....against a moral principle that the supreme court actually supported? For votes? Oh...explain that to those who die. Explain that to how our society just gets sicker and sicker as we dehumanize ourselves to support capital punishment for crime after crime. Hey...shop lifting is really BAAAAADDDDD!!!! Hang em high! Sarc.

Sorry, but I see signs that Obama will just say anything to get elected. And he will do anything to get reelected. just like ..... anyone....I guess. How is he CHANGE? How can he support killing people for political gain and say he is morally different in any way than the politicians who voted for the IWR for political gain? I am sick and tired of politicians feeling the need to friggin kill in order to further their transparent careers.

The essential question I have for supporters of capital punishment is whether we should electrocute those who will premeditatedly kill prisoners convicted of a crime, or should we electrocute all those who applaud and vote for those who support such a barbaric practice, or all of the above? In what way is it more or less moral to premeditatedly murder a convicted criminal than to murder the executioner who premeditatedly murdered the criminal? Murder is murder. Premeditated murder is premediated murder. Should we have premeditated murder against the person whose crime is not murder, but rape? And...let's get things straight...the person is probably, but not certainly, guilty....

SICK. MORALLY. EVIL.

Dukakis was asked that question in a debate (by Shaw of CNN) and his answer was incredibly cold and wanting of any emotion.

There are better ways to address issues like this, former Gov Cuomo was very good at it.

Also, in reading the article it is unclear why he was addressing this issue.

he was not obliged to adopt or equivocate on.

Expanding the death penalty....along with its possible wrongful convictions....to a whole new class of crimes is not at all wise.

It is just as easy, and probably more so, to wrongfully convict an innocent man of rape as it is murder.

He'd be damned if he did, damned if he didn't on this position.

run. hide. bow down. quake. give in.

Someone else on this thread comments that Obama can give a n eloquent response to the "Dukakis" question.

I believe so too. there has been plenty of time to prepare it after all.
But the issue is - you have to want to deliver it!

Seriously. I want to win this election, people!

Support something that lost in the Supreme Court. You win all the disappointed voters, and as it has no chance of ever happening, you don't lose the righteous folk who welcomed the decision, either.

...but I'm glad Obama knows how to play the game. I'd rather win this time around.

I only favor the death penalty in special cases and that crime is a special case in my book.

Namely, that it would drive the problem further underground, that you would end up with more dead kids, and that it doesn't send a message to rape victims that is conducive to healing (i.e. you might as well be dead yourself).

In addition, the majority of rape victims are raped by family members or acquaintances of the family. Would you want to execute someone over the objection of the victim (or other family members)?

rid of peoples rights and instill executions for any crime the state feels is against it.

It always starts with the child molesters. They just bring out the blood thirst in supposedly civilized people such as yourself.

You just bought in. Now careful you don't choke on all that koolaide you're swallowing.

Sorry you're all so disappointed but he did what he needed to do. You don't get very far with the public defending sick men who sexually molest children, regardless of the ethics of the death penalty.

any circumstances.

I think that would suffice. How is that position supporting child rapists?

and paint their opponents as "not one of you", someone who doesn't care about raped children but instead defends the slime that savaged them. Thats exactly how they would frame the issue and they would box him into the same corner they boxed Michael Dukakis in. I don't want to lose another election over diversions like school prayer, flag-burnig, the pledge of allegiance etc. Not this time. We have too much to lose.

JMO.

These child rapists do not deserve to live, imo. I am suspicious of people who condone preying on children. Children are treated like 3rd class citizens in the world while rapists get away with it. Few years in jail, lots of "rehab" , then they are released to rape or kill again.

(sans USA, Cuba, Guatemala and some other tiny islands)

After all, BEING AGAINST THE DP = LOVING CRIMINALS!!!1111!!!1log(e)11!!

Apparently, if one is not for the most violent, bloody, inhumane, barbaraic treatment one can think up, then one is probably a criminal themselves.

Hello? HELLO?

It was just meant to point out that being opposed to giving the DP to child rapists is not equivalent to condoning their behavior. It was a rather sloppy straw man that the poster tossed out, and I pounced on it.